These questions are certainly fair ones.
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason offers some helpful insight into answering the question "Why is Jesus necessary?" in a blog entitled "Cross-examining the Attorney." In less than 60 seconds you can communicate the truth of why individuals need Jesus by asking two simple questions. The following reflections on a conversation Greg had illustrates important tactics and considerations ambassadors of Jesus Christ should always keep in mind:
Sometimes we have to reframe a critic's question in order to give an accurate answer. The questions, Am I going to Hell if I don't believe in Jesus?, is an example. As it is asked, it makes it sounds as though Jesus were the problem, not the answer. As though failing a theology quiz sends us to Hell. Instead, we need to reframe the question to answer accurately and show that sin is the problem, and Jesus is the only way because He alone has solved that problem. Sinners don't go to Hell for failing petty theology quizzes.
While giving a talk at a local Barnes and Noble, someone asked why it was necessary for him to believe in Jesus. He was Jewish, believed in God, and was living a moral life. Those were the important things, it seemed—how you lived, not what you believed.
To him the Christian message depicted a narrow-minded God pitching people into Hell because of an arcane detail of Christian theology. How should I answer?
Remember that the first responsibility of an ambassador is knowledge—an accurately informed message. What is our message?
One way to say it is, “If you don’t believe in Jesus, you’ll go to Hell. If you do believe, you’ll go to Heaven.”
That’s certainly true, as far as it goes. The problem is it’s not clear. Since it doesn’t give an accurate sense of why Jesus is necessary, it makes God sound petty.
So how do we fix this? Here’s how I responded to my Jewish questioner. I asked him two simple questions.
“Do you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?”
He thought for a moment. “Well, since I’m a prosecuting attorney…yes.”
“So do I,” I agreed.
“Second question: Have you ever committed any moral crimes?”
There was a slight pause. This was getting personal. “Yes, I guess I have,” he admitted.
“So have I,” I confessed, agreeing with him again.
“So now we have this difficult situation, don’t we? We both believe those who commit moral crimes ought to be punished, and we both believe we’ve committed moral crimes. Do you know what I call that? I call that bad news.”
In less than 60 seconds I had accomplished a remarkable thing with this approach. I didn’t have to convince him he was a sinner. He was telling me. I didn’t have to convince him he deserved to be punished. He was telling me.
I was tapping into a deep intuition every person shares: knowledge of his own guilt. And I didn’t do it arrogantly or in an obnoxious, condescending way. I freely admitted I was in the same trouble he was.
Now that we agreed on the problem it was time to give the solution.
“This is where Jesus comes in,” I explained. “We both know we’re guilty. That’s the problem. So God offers a solution: a pardon, free of charge. But it’s on His terms, not ours. Jesus is God’s answer because He personally paid the penalty for us. He took the rap in our place. No one else has done that. Now we have a choice to make. We either take the pardon and go free, or refuse it and pay for our own crimes.”
This approach reveals a very important sequence in making our message intelligible: First the bad news, then the good news.
There are other illustrations you could use to do this, but the sequence is critical. It’s the way any good doctor proceeds. And it was the consistent method used by the apostles. Take a look for yourself. In every one of the 13 times the Gospel was preached in Acts, the disciples used the same approach.
Why is this technique important? Because it gives an accurate sense of why Jesus is necessary. It shows that God is not trivial, but merciful, not petty, but kind, graciously offering forgiveness to those who desperately need it.
8 comments:
The problem is not the fact that we all have failed morally (or sinned, to use christian terms.) I think many, if not most people agree with that. The problem is precisely with the terms for justice or forgiveness that Christians say God has supposedly given. The problem can be broken down into several issues:
1. Why is belief necessary for salvation, when someone will presumably disbelieve for intellectual (as opposed to spiritual) reasons and some people will be condemned without ever hearing about jesus (the problem of the unevangalized.) It seems Christianity is conflating a moral choice such as choosing to obey God with an intellectual choice, such as did jesus really rise from the dead. Why would God give a path to salvation for some but not all?
2. Why can't God just forgive whom he wants to forgive, or for those that sincerely want to be forgiven? Why do those that believe have a monopoly on an infinite God's forgiveness? Isn't God's nature just as much to forgive as it is to do justice? If so, why is it God can dish out justice to sinner's by default, but you have to "believe something" or do something special to obtain forgiveness?
3. Why is heaven and hell the only two options? Eastern religions have reincarnation. Catholicism has purgatory. One can think of a variety of more merciful and intelligent ways to rehabilitate a wayward race than those the two options of heaven and hell.
4. is torture by burning to death over and over for all eternity really justice for a finite amount of sins? Or is it just that--torture?
5. How does Jesus dying on the cross save anyone? He didn't experience hell for eternity, only temporally. So justice wasn't completely fulfilled. Justice also requires that the guilty be punished not the innocent, or else its not really justice.
Just a few of my unanswered questions, from a former Christian.
Fregas,
These are great questions. Let me make a few observations.
First, I don't think any of your questions here have to do with whether or not Christianity is actually true. These seem to be more emotional objections with Christian doctrine you don't like or don't understand. Of course, whether or not you like the doctrines of hell, exclusivism, etc. has nothing to do with whether or not they are true.
Second, some of your questions are based on misunderstandings, e.g., referring to hell as "torture," or could be answered by simply consulting a good book on systematic theology. This leads to the final point.
Finally, you don't ask a single question here that has not been addressed before in the history of Christian apologetics/theology/philosophy. This is unfortunate, especially since you refer to yourself as a former Christian. This means you either are not familiar with the vast amount of literature addressing these topics or you are familiar with it but do not find it persuasive.
If the former, it is a shame you abandoned the faith without knowing what you believed and why you believed it. Please let me know and I can recommend some books which address these topics.
If the latter, there is probably nothing I can say that you haven't read before, and if men such as Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, etc. (to name some ancients) and Lewis, Moreland, Craig, Copan, etc. (to name some moderns) did not convince you, it would be arrogant of me to think I could succeed where they have failed.
wyypIts very easy to assume that those that disagree with you are doing so because of emotional bias. I hear this from atheist and christians alike all the time. That aside, I think every one of my questions has to do with whether or not Christianity is true. However, Christians typically claim that their faith is logically coherent. If that is the case, then you must be able to show the logical consistency of a supreme being that is supposed to be all merciful but shows mercy in a partial way to a few, or who is all just but punishes the innocent for the guilty sins, for example.
As far as my referring to hell as "torture" i take it you feel hell is symbolic. First, not all Christians agree with you that hell is symbolic. Many believe it literally involves torture, even if not actual flames. Second, if it is a symbol, that means flames as a symbol is worse than physician torture, just as if "Streets of gold" is symbolic of something better that would find in an actual heaven. The thing being symbolized is typically greater than the symbol itself. So this offers you no better choice than to believe in a God who tortures. If you take hell literally, it means torture. If symbolic, it means he is doing something worse than torture to those that don't happen to believe in him or believe in the wrong version of him.
I have read books on theology, philosophy, apologetics and Christianity in general, so I'm not coming into this cold. I certainly can't say I have read everything on the subject and I don't have a degree in philosophy or theology. Is that necessary in order to understand Christianity? There are some answers that I have been satisfied with and many I am not, some of which I referred to above. You are welcome to recommend some books. Maybe there is some vital information I have overlooked. With respect though, if you are uninterested in answering my above questions directly, why bother doing apologetics at all? Why bother having an apologetics site to presumably answer questions of skeptics such as myself?
Fregas,
Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I responded below.
Its very easy to assume that those that disagree with you are doing so because of emotional bias. I hear this from atheist and christians alike all the time. That aside, I think every one of my questions has to do with whether or not Christianity is true.
I didn't mean to assume you only have emotional reasons. I apologize if that was presumptuous. The reason I said that your questions don't have to do so much with whether or not Christianity is true is because your questions are not external objections (such as arguments against the existence of God or resurrection of Jesus) but rather they have to do with the internal coherence of Christian theism itself. But if that is the case, you cannot import your own definitions and presuppositions into the Christian system and then claim Christianity is internally inconsistent.
However, Christians typically claim that their faith is logically coherent. If that is the case, then you must be able to show the logical consistency of a supreme being that is supposed to be all merciful but shows mercy in a partial way to a few, or who is all just but punishes the innocent for the guilty sins, for example.
This is what I mean about importing your own definitions into Christian theism. I don't know any Christian theologians or philosophers who argue that God being merciful means He must show the exact same amount of mercy to each and every single individual, nor do I think this definition is necessary for God to be considered merciful. Regarding justice, God doesn't punish the innocent. If you are referring to Christ on the cross, God as the offended party took upon Himself the burden of our offense as we all must do if there is to be shalom when we are sinned against.
As far as my referring to hell as "torture" i take it you feel hell is symbolic.
No, that is not my position. Hell is real, but the biblical language used to describe it is often metaphorical. Hell is torment, not torture. The words have different connotations.
I have read books on theology, philosophy, apologetics and Christianity in general, so I'm not coming into this cold. I certainly can't say I have read everything on the subject and I don't have a degree in philosophy or theology. Is that necessary in order to understand Christianity?
Not at all, but we shouldn't reinvent the wheel.
There are some answers that I have been satisfied with and many I am not, some of which I referred to above. You are welcome to recommend some books. Maybe there is some vital information I have overlooked.
Here are some more recent books that come to mind:
On Hell: The Doctrine of Endless Punishment, by William Shedd
Hell Under Fire, edited by Morgan and Peterson
Also, look for a forthcoming book by Alan Gomes on heaven and hell.
On Exclusivity: See William Lane Craig for a Molinist perspective, Hard Questions Real Answers (chapter 8)
Faith Comes by Hearing, edited by Morgan and Peterson
With respect though, if you are uninterested in answering my above questions directly, why bother doing apologetics at all?
It is not so much that I am uninterested but rather that I am busy. That is one reason it takes me so long to respond to comments on the blog. And it is a waste of time and resources to spend hours typing away when what I am saying is something you have heard before but find unconvincing.
Furthermore, it is much easier to ask the hard questions than it is to listen to the hard answers. Playing the part of the skeptic is easy Fregas. Anyone can do it. Leaving a comment on the blog asking 20 questions leaves all the heavy lifting to me, which is why I made it a point to say that all of these questions have been addressed before. We need to start by doing our own homework.
How about this: pick one question, tell me what you have read in response to this question by Christians and why you find it unconvincing, and then maybe I can try to offer something new. Sound good?
Why bother having an apologetics site to presumably answer questions of skeptics such as myself?
Because apologetics is for the church too Fregas, not just unbelievers. And I do enjoy dialoguing and blogging, I am just very busy. Sorry.
Godspeed to you Fregas as you continue your pursuit of truth.
My answers below
I didn't mean to assume you only have emotional reasons. I apologize if that was presumptuous. The reason I said that your questions don't have to do so much with whether or not Christianity is true is because your questions are not external objections (such as arguments against the existence of God or resurrection of Jesus) but rather they have to do with the internal coherence of Christian theism itself. But if that is the case, you cannot import your own definitions and presuppositions into the Christian system and then claim Christianity is internally inconsistent.
No problem. I don't see how I imported by own presuppositions, other than simple logic and common sense. You made the claim that God is not partial or petty, but merciful and just. Is it just to give mercy to the few, based on an intellectual commitment to a world view and damn everyone else? Is it merciful? Or is it petty and partial? I think most people outside the Christian worldview, and even many within it, agree that its petty and partial. You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand claim that God's nature conforms to common sense or logical ideas of justice and mercy that we all understand, but then when people object that his actions don't seem just or merciful, claim they are importing their own arbitrary ideas and presuppositions into Christianity. YOU made the claim that God was just and merciful, not me.
This is what I mean about importing your own definitions into Christian theism. I don't know any Christian theologians or philosophers who argue that God being merciful means He must show the exact same amount of mercy to each and every single individual, nor do I think this definition is necessary for God to be considered merciful.
Its not that he must show the exact same mercy to every individual. Should he show the same mercy to hitler as anne frank? I don't know. (Although according to your worldview, Anne Frank is likely in hell, after being tortured by the nazis.) But it doesn't seem very merciful to throw billions of souls into hell, who never heard of christ, or who disbelieve in him because they didn't feel there was enough evidence even if they were mistaken. Also, if God is every bit as merciful as he is just, why do we have to "earn" his mercy by believing the right things? Why is damnation the default? Or to put it another way, Christians claim God "MUST punish all sin" because his nature is holy and just. That is along the lines of your argument above. But if he is perfectly compassionate and merciful, couldn't one just as easily say God "MUST forgive all" as well?
Regarding justice, God doesn't punish the innocent. If you are referring to Christ on the cross, God as the offended party took upon Himself the burden of our offense as we all must do if there is to be shalom when we are sinned against
Wasn't jesus innocent of all sin, according to your worldview? He is supposed to be the lamb, white as snow, spotless? If so, God punished the innocent. Even if you say God punished part of himself, then he punished the innocent. If you're saying noone was punished, then justice was not satisfied.
No, that is not my position. Hell is real, but the biblical language used to describe it is often metaphorical. Hell is torment, not torture. The words have different connotations.
I think we're arguing semantics here. What is the difference between symbolic or metaphorical, torment or torture? That seems quite subtle. I'm not saying you don't believe hell is real. I agree that while you and SOME CHRISTIANS (not all) may not believe it its literal flames, you do believe its a real place or state of being. Still, my argument stands. If its literally real, its torture. If its metaphorical, its probably worse than torture. The symbols or metaphors in the bible usually refer to something greater than themselves.
Here are some more recent books that come to mind…
Thank you.
It is not so much that I am uninterested but rather that I am busy.
Fair enough.
Furthermore, it is much easier to ask the hard questions than it is to listen to the hard answers. Playing the part of the skeptic is easy Fregas
Not really. its hard to listen both sides of an argument, and do the critical thinking for yourself, as opposed to the church, the bible or a minister. My beef isn't really with God so much as it is with those who claim to speak for him. Most church goers just accept what they are told. I'm not saying you're like this--obviously not since you're an apologist. Atheists and skeptics get asked hard questions all the time too, and there are just as many Christians who will come in and ask them to do all the footwork, without having researched things like cosmology or evolution, or the history of ethics, or the science of the brain. Anyway, that wasn't my intention. Most of the answers I've heard from christians to these types of questions have been along the lines of "God is god, so he can do what he wants", "its a mystery, we'll find out in heaven", "God will do whatever is right", "humanity is just so bad we deserve it." I even got "Whoever said God was fair???" from my best friend's Dad. Needless to say, I haven't found these particularly satisfying.
Fregas,
As I said before, read the books I recommended. Here is another one which may help you on penal substitution:
Pierced for our Transgressions by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach.
Now, pick one question. ONE QUESTION, like "What is your view on the destiny of the unevangelized?" Then let's talk. We can try to stick with that one question and see if we can work through it.
<><
Post a Comment